Rolf Harris Jailed

[Dancing Queen]

Hasn't it been said earlier that Esther Rantzen was aware of the JS situation and she chose to turn a blind eye to it it makes you wonder how many more high profile people were aware of what was happening and did the same.

I don't understand either why these women didn't shout 'loudly' at the time I certainly would have ( a child is different, who knows what they were threatened with )

I haven't really followed the RH case but he's been found guilty so the evidence must have been there to convict him, quite honestly I think he should have got more than 5 years in fact any crime against children they should lock them up and throw away the key, I also think those that knew and kept quiet should be made accountable, just my personal opinion .. rant over !!!

[oldbluefox]

Hasn't it been said earlier that Esther Rantzen was aware of the JS situation and she chose to turn a blind eye to it it makes you wonder how many more high profile people were aware of what was happening and did the same.

I don't understand either why these women didn't shout 'loudly' at the time I certainly would have ( a child is different, who knows what they were threatened with )

I haven't really followed the RH case but he's been found guilty so the evidence must have been there to convict him, quite honestly I think he should have got more than 5 years in fact any crime against children they should lock them up and throw away the key, I also think those that knew and kept quiet should be made accountable, just my personal opinion .. rant over !!!

[Silver_Shiney]

Hasn't it been said earlier that Esther Rantzen was aware of the JS situation and she chose to turn a blind eye to it it makes you wonder how many more high profile people were aware of what was happening and did the same.

I don't understand either why these women didn't shout 'loudly' at the time I certainly would have ( a child is different, who knows what they were threatened with )

I haven't really followed the RH case but he's been found guilty so the evidence must have been there to convict him, quite honestly I think he should have got more than 5 years in fact any crime against children they should lock them up and throw away the key, I also think those that knew and kept quiet should be made accountable, just my personal opinion .. rant over !!!

[lioness]

I can remember as a young girl of 13 working in our local dairy on a Saturday morning for some pocket money. The man I worked for would regularly grope, fondle whatever. I remember being quite embarrassed. My mother went up once and told him I was jail-bait!! I suppose in those days we just called them dirty old men and ignored it. These days thank goodness it's considered an assault.

[david63]

As I have said before with all of these cases something doesn't sit comfortably with me - there is more to the cases than we are aware of.

I fully accept that "something" happened but there are, in most cases, only two people that know exactly what happened at the time and what actually happened and what is now perceived to have happened may be two totally different things.

In the case of RH I do not believe that it was an "open and shut" case. It took the jury over a week of deliberations to arrive at their verdict, based on the evidence that they had heard. This to me would suggest that at the outset they were not fully in accord and I worry that one, or more, members of the jury could have been swayed by others with an "agenda". I also believe that this is another possible argument for having "professional" juries.

[Boris+]

I have to agree with David, I'm not comfortable with what has transpired. David refers to the fact that only two people in each particular alleged incident really know what happened; and I am sceptical about the whole thing. In the absence of actual forensically acceptable evidence I don't buy it.

Professionals making 'judgements' - might be a good thing.

Em

[Mervyn and Trish]

I have to respect the jury's verdict because they were there and I wasn't, so I didn't hear the evidence, but I too worry about these cases and the time that has passed.

On one hand it means the victims have had to live with it for too long without justice.

On the other I struggle to see how a trial can be fair at this distance. There is no forensic evidence and no-one has events fresh in their minds so there is confusion over dates, places etc. If I were accused of something thirty years ago, apart from knowing it is not true because I have never done anything like this, I would struggle to answer the question "where were you on such and such day in 1984?" and provide any sort of alibi.

It all comes down to one person's word against another and who the jury believe. In William Roache's case they believed him. In Rolf Harris's case they believed the victims.

And now, of course, that he is convicted, and there is a sniff of compensation, other "victims" who've never spoken before start appearing.

As I say, I accept the juries verdict because they were there, but I find the whole process uncomfortable.

[lioness]

The fact that they are prosecuting RH for downloading images of children should tell us something about him. Also the fact that the victims do not know each other but told similar stories.

[Onelife]

I don't think we should be suggesting there are mitigating cercumstances in this or any other case that involves children.......he along with all the other perverts that sexually abuse children know what they do is wrong and yet they do it anyway.

He got off lightly as far as l am concerned.

[Dancing Queen]

I agree with Mervyn most people would struggle to find an alibi for something that happened 30/40 years ago in fact I would think it almost impossible, I would also think to give an accurate account would also be nigh on impossible unless of course you were the victim and I assume something like that would never leave you so give some credit to the victims, the police and the jury, if RH had been innocent then he would have been found so, I'm sure he had the best lawyers money could buy.

None of us know what evidence has not been made public for all we know he could have kept diaries as could his wife or daughter or indeed his victims, I certainly don't believe it would ever have come down to who was more believable RH or his victims without some damning evidence being presented.

If and it is a very big IF he is innocent then thanks to our justice system he will have the right to appeal and if not then he did the crime so he deserves to do the time.

[Kenmo1]

What I find shocking is how judgemental I can be and these cases have made me realise this e.g I half expected Freddie Starr and Jim Davidson to be charged and yet no case was brought against both of them but I was totally shocked when Stuart Hall and Rolf Harris were charged as my immediate response was that can't be right, they don't seem the sort as they had that air of respectability. It just goes to show how we judge or misjudge people, often wrongly.

Maureen

[towny44]

I agree with Mervyn most people would struggle to find an alibi for something that happened 30/40 years ago in fact I would think it almost impossible, I would also think to give an accurate account would also be nigh on impossible unless of course you were the victim and I assume something like that would never leave you so give some credit to the victims, the police and the jury, if RH had been innocent then he would have been found so, I'm sure he had the best lawyers money could buy.

None of us know what evidence has not been made public for all we know he could have kept diaries as could his wife or daughter or indeed his victims, I certainly don't believe it would ever have come down to who was more believable RH or his victims without some damning evidence being presented.

If and it is a very big IF he is innocent then thanks to our justice system he will have the right to appeal and if not then he did the crime so he deserves to do the time.

As far as I understand, the jury has to hear all the evidence and the press are able to report on it. So you know as much the jury, although obviously not in as much detail, therefore they have based their verdict on this, reported, evidence. I certainly don't think that I could have found him guilty "beyond reasonable doubt", but I have to admit that I have always been dubious about jury trials.

[Mervyn and Trish]

I don't think we should be suggesting there are mitigating cercumstances in this or any other case that involves children.......he along with all the other perverts that sexually abuse children know what they do is wrong and yet they do it anyway.

He got off lightly as far as l am concerned.

I for one have certainly not suggested there are mitigating circumstances. I merely point out my concern about the general problems of dealing with cases from so long ago and defending oneself if wrongly accused. Again I am not suggesting that RH was wrongly accused.

The fact that they are prosecuting RH for downloading images of children should tell us something about him. Also the fact that the victims do not know each other but told similar stories.

Not sure that quite adds up Lioness. Downloading images of children is utterly wrong and tell us he is very unpleasant, but not all those that do so also physically attack or abuse children in person. You couldn't base a conviction on that leap.

Also in other cases, such as William Roach, accusers who did not know each other told similar stories, but were not believed. I don't think it as simple as that. If it was the jury wouldn't have taken several days to reach their verdict. Again I am not suggesting for one minute that RH is innocent, but when a wealthy celebrity is involved and there is a sniff of compensation in the wind there is a danger of malicious copy-cat allegations. Believe me in the course of my career I've seen it happen, in the case of which I have detailed knowledge when someone was accused of killing children.

[The Tinker]

I agree with Mervyn most people would struggle to find an alibi for something that happened 30/40 years ago in fact I would think it almost impossible, I would also think to give an accurate account would also be nigh on impossible unless of course you were the victim and I assume something like that would never leave you so give some credit to the victims, the police and the jury, if RH had been innocent then he would have been found so, I'm sure he had the best lawyers money could buy.

None of us know what evidence has not been made public for all we know he could have kept diaries as could his wife or daughter or indeed his victims, I certainly don't believe it would ever have come down to who was more believable RH or his victims without some damning evidence being presented.

If and it is a very big IF he is innocent then thanks to our justice system he will have the right to appeal and if not then he did the crime so he deserves to do the time.

Being a high profile celebrity added to his downfall - I watched an interview with a journalist on our local news who at the age of 16 had to 'look after' Rolf when filming a programme. Apparently Rolf denied being in this location but the tv pictures proved otherwise. He also tried to sexually assault this young girl who luckily had the guts to stop him in his tracks but it was quite harrowing to see her reaction to the trial and how it had affected her.

[Manoverboard]

I don't think we should be suggesting there are mitigating cercumstances in this or any other case that involves children.......he along with all the other perverts that sexually abuse children know what they do is wrong and yet they do it anyway.

He got off lightly as far as l am concerned.

I take my hat off to you young Sir ...

Tell me ... during your youth and one's period of sowing wild oats can we all assume that you were as pure as the driven snow and did not grope or fondle a young girl who may have been under the age of consent ?

Come on, get real ... we were all at it in the good old days but some got found out due to their celebrity status.

None of this rests easy with me, a few have taken a fall to make others feel good about themselves ... it is false emotion for the most part.

[david63]

A thought that has just occurred to me - I wonder if the CPS has learned from their mistakes with others and has been more selective as to who they called as witnesses and that they were properly "tutored" before they went into the witness box?

[Silver_Shiney]

I don't think we should be suggesting there are mitigating cercumstances in this or any other case that involves children.......he along with all the other perverts that sexually abuse children know what they do is wrong and yet they do it anyway.

He got off lightly as far as l am concerned.

I take my hat off to you young Sir ...

Tell me ... during your youth and one's period of sowing wild oats can we all assume that you were as pure as the driven snow and did not grope or fondle a young girl who may have been under the age of consent ?

Come on, get real ... we were all at it in the good old days but some got found out due to their celebrity status.

None of this rests easy with me, a few have taken a fall to make others feel good about themselves ... it is false emotion for the most part.

Not forgetting that a lot of girls were sexually precocious themselves. I am not, in any way, suggesting that the girls in the RH case were so but I've seen plenty of underage girls "trying it on".

[ChesterfieldJohn]

Sorry but some peoples responses on here are disgusting.

The man was found guilty and one of his victims was 8 Yes 8 at the time he molested her.

And it is suggested that some girls were 'sexually precocious themselves' an EIGHT year old!!!!!!

'during your youth and one's period of sowing wild oats can we all assume that you were as pure as the driven snow and did not grope or fondle a young girl who may have been under the age of consent ?'

This may have happened yes, but I repeat with an EIGHT year old!!!

I feel that peoples 'liking' for Harris is clouding peoples judgement.

If he had done what he did to any of my daughters when they were EIGHT I would be the one in the dock.

The man is a paedophile and a pervert.

John

[Dancing Queen]

Well said John

There is a vast difference from a promiscuous young woman wanting to present herself as being older than she is to get close to a 'so called celebrity' or even someone 'sowing their wild oats' but as you say an EIGHT year old ... I can't even comprehend that.

[Silver_Shiney]

Did I say that of the particular girls in this case? Be honest, CJ, I did NOT.

I didn't even say "8-year old".

However, I did have the misfortune to come across a very promiscuous 13-year old back in 1973. What the hell is a girl of that age doing even knowing about sex, much less why is she flaunting herself.

The sad fact remains, though, that there are some girls out there who do behave in such manner

[ChesterfieldJohn]

Did I say that of the particular girls in this case? Be honest, CJ, I did NOT.

I didn't even say "8-year old".

However, I did have the misfortune to come across a very promiscuous 13-year old back in 1973. What the hell is a girl of that age doing even knowing about sex, much less why is she flaunting herself.

And I presume you did not take advantage of her.

My Girls new about sex at 13 of course they did.

The sad fact remains, though, that there are some girls out there who do behave in such manner

And because they behave in that manner a man old enough to be their father takes advantage of it.

I hope that someone gets hold of him in prison and gives him what he truly deserves.

John

[Silver_Shiney]

Damn right I didn't. None of us did.

Did I say that, because some silly girls behave like that, it is acceptable for any adult to take advantage of them? Well? Did I? Come on, CJ, instead of trying to take cheap shots at my expense, tell me where I even alluded to that.

That your girls knew about sex at 13 is, frankly, irrelevant. I didn't know anything about it at that age. Chidlren have their childhood taken from them way too early these days.

[ChesterfieldJohn]

Damn right I didn't. None of us did.

Did I say that, because some silly girls behave like that, it is acceptable for any adult to take advantage of them? Well? Did I? Come on, CJ, instead of trying to take cheap shots at my expense, tell me where I even alluded to that.

That your girls knew about sex at 13 is, frankly, irrelevant. I didn't know anything about it at that age. Chidlren have their childhood taken from them way too early these days.

'However, I did have the misfortune to come across a very promiscuous 13-year old back in 1973. What the hell is a girl of that age doing even knowing about sex, much less why is she flaunting herself.'
That is why I said about my girls knowing about sex at 13.

I never said that you said it was acceptable you were using the quote, in my opinion, to defend Harris for what he did.
There are no cheap shots being taken at all.

As I have said I cannot understand ANYONE defending a paedophile and pervert.

John

[Silver_Shiney]

Your response certainly came over to me as a cheap shot and how you could interpret what I said as being defensive of Rolf Harris is beyond me.

I was merely stating a fact that some underage girls are like that. It goes without saying that anyone taking advantage of that situation deserves what is coming to them.

[ChesterfieldJohn]

Manoverboard wrote:
Onelife wrote:
I don't think we should be suggesting there are mitigating cercumstances in this or any other case that involves children.......he along with all the other perverts that sexually abuse children know what they do is wrong and yet they do it anyway.

He got off lightly as far as l am concerned.

I take my hat off to you young Sir ...

Tell me ... during your youth and one's period of sowing wild oats can we all assume that you were as pure as the driven snow and did not grope or fondle a young girl who may have been under the age of consent ?

Come on, get real ... we were all at it in the good old days but some got found out due to their celebrity status.

None of this rests easy with me, a few have taken a fall to make others feel good about themselves ... it is false emotion for the most part.


Not forgetting that a lot of girls were sexually precocious themselves. I am not, in any way, suggesting that the girls in the RH case were so but I've seen plenty of underage girls "trying it on".

That is where I got my opinion from.